, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 317–325 | Cite as

Neuroethics and the Ethical Parity Principle

Original Paper


Neil Levy offers the most prominent moral principles that are specifically and exclusively designed to apply to neuroethics. His two closely related principles, labeled as versions of the ethical parity principle (EPP), are intended to resolve moral concerns about neurological modification and enhancement [1]. Though EPP is appealing and potentially illuminating, we reject the first version and substantially modify the second. Since his first principle, called EPP (strong), is dependent on the contention that the mind literally extends into external props such as paper notebooks and electronic devices, we begin with an examination of the extended mind hypothesis (EMH) and its use in Levy’s EPP (strong). We argue against reliance on EMH as support for EPP (strong). We turn to his second principle, EPP (weak), which is not dependent on EMH but is tied to the acceptable claim that the mind is embedded in, because dependent on, external props. As a result of our critique of EPP (weak), we develop a modified version of EPP (weak), which we argue is more acceptable than Levy’s principle. Finally, we evaluate the applicability of our version of EPP (weak).


Neuroethics Levy Human enhancement Bioethics Extended mind 


  1. 1.
    Levy, Neil. 2007. Neuroethics: challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58(1): 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark, Andy. 2011. Finding the mind. Philosophical Studies 152(3): 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weiskopf, Daniel A. 2008. Patrolling the Mind’s boundaries. Erkenntnis 68(2): 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michaelian, Kourken. 2012. Is external memory memory? Biological memory and extended mind. Consciousness and Cognition 21(3): 1154–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sprevak, Mark. 2009. Extended cognition and functionalism. The Journal of Philosophy 106(9): 503–527.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark, Andy. 1998. Author’s response: review symposium on being there. Metascience 7: 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palermos, S. Orestis. 2014. Loops, constitution, and cognitive extension. Cognitive Systems Research 27: 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rupert, Robert D. 2011. Cognitive systems and the supersized mind. Philosophical Studies 152(3): 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levy, Neil. 2011. Neuroethics and the extended mind. In Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, ed J. Illes and B.J. Sahakian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clark, Andy. 2011. Précis of supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension (Oxford university press, NY, 2008). Philosophical Studies 152(3): 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. 2003. Libertarian paternalism. The American Economic Review 93(2): 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ploug, Thomas, Holm Søren, and Brodersen John. 2012. To nudge or not to nudge: cancer screening programmes and the limits of libertarian paternalism. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 66(12): 1193–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCleveland State UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.NeuroEthics ProgramCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations